Tibet & China: Relationship & Conflict | ommag.info
In the Qing view, Tibet was a part of China but at the same time it was .. defuse political tensions while building closer economic ties with the. Beijing says Tibet is a core issue for China. India must also call on Beijing to help build harmonious bilateral relations by renouncing its. Is India sacrificing Tibet to improve a frosty relationship with China? to prevent the Chinese from building roads in the sensitive region.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
He reasserted Tibet as an independent nation, and the country issued its out currency, passports, and flag. China, during this time, was fighting a civil war that replaced the ancient empire with an unstable republic.
China claims that they never recognized Tibet's claim to independence, and couldn't negotiate due to their own war. The Flag of Tibet The s Now we get to the real heart of the issue. Inthe newly formed PRC sought to reestablish the security of the nation by formally delineating its borders. Tibet, a region with abundant natural resources bordering the large and powerful nation of India, became a target.
To this day, the PRC maintains that the military invasion of Tibet was designed to reform the region, bringing it up to modern political and economic standards, and specifically to abolish the Tibetan practice of serfdom.
Tibetans claim that Chinese occupation was a true invasion, characterized by extraordinary violence, murder, and near-genocidal assaults, a claim the PRC has never admitted to be true. Inthe Tibetan government was forced to sign a point agreement formally recognizing Tibet as part of China.
It was the first time Tibet had ever officially agreed to that relationship. The Chinese army marches into the Tibetan capital in Tibetans, encouraged by the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, rebelled. China responded with force, and in the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government, and roughly 80, Tibetans were exiled to India.
On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, who established his sovereign rule over Tibet with the help of a Mongol patron indid develop close religious ties with the Manchu emperors, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty The Dalai Lama agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor, and accepted patronage and protection in exchange.
This "priest-patron" relationship known in Tibetan as Choe-Yoenwhich the Dalai Lama also maintained with some Mongol princes and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing Dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet's independence. On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet.
Thus, between andEmperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen, and Qianlong sent imperial troops to Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasions by Mongols, and Gorkhas or from internal unrest. These expeditions provided the emperor with the means for establishing influence in Tibet. He sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the Tibetan government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations.
At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a satellite or protectorate, and therefore one which, though politically significant, does not extinguish the independent existence of the weaker state. Tibet was never incorporated into the Manchu Empire, much less China, and it continued to conduct its relations with neighboring states largely on its own.
Manchu influence did not last very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Lhasa and concluded a bilateral treaty with Tibet, the Lhasa Convention, in Despite this loss of influence, the imperial government in Peking continued to claim some authority over Tibet, particularly with respect to its international relations, an authority which the British imperial government termed "suzerainty" in its dealings with Peking and St.
Chinese imperial armies tried to reassert actual influence in by invading the country and occupying Lhasa. Following the revolution in China and the overthrow of the Manchu Empire, the troops surrendered to the Tibetan army and were repatriated under a sino-Tibetan peace accord. The Dalai Lama reasserted Tibet's full independence internally, by issuing a proclamation, and externally, in communications to foreign rulers and in a treaty with Mongolia. Tibet in the 20th Century Tibet's status following the expulsion of Manchu troops is not subject to serious dispute.
What ever ties existed between the Dalai Lama and the Manchu emperors of the Qing Dynasty were extinguished with the fall of that empire and dynasty. From toTibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with nepal, Bhutan, Britain, and later with independent India. Relations with China remain strained.
The Chinese waged a border war with Tibet while formally urging Tibet to "join" the Chinese Republic, claiming all along to the world that Tibet already was one of China's "five races. As the British delegation reminded his Chinese counterpart, Tibet entered the conference as "independent nation recognizing no allegiance to China. It was, nevertheless, significant in that Anglo-Tibetans friendship was reaffirmed with the conclusion of bilateral trade and border agreements.
In a Joint Declaration, Great Britain and Tibet bound themselves not to recognize Chinese suzerainty or other special rights in Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention which would have guaranteed Tibet's greater borders, its territorial integrity and fully autonomy. China never signed the Convention, however, leaving the terms of the Joint Declaration in full force. Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with the British, Chinese, Nepalese, and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations travelling abroad.
When India became independent, the British mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one. Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would with any sovereign state. March, Introduction In March Tibet, known for its deeply religious and peaceful Buddhist people, broke out in widespread protests all over the Tibet Autonomous Region TAR as well as in the ethnically Tibetan areas of neighboring provinces.
Some of these protests were peaceful, but others turned into riots and violence — including the burning and looting of stores owned by Han Chinese, China's majority ethnic group.
At least 19 people were killed, most of them Han Chinese. By some estimates, the March protests culminated in the deaths of over "unarmed" Tibetans — many of them Buddhist monks. From Tibet's perspective, this invasion interrupted centuries of independent nationhood. The Chinese, meanwhile, believed they were simply reestablishing control of part of their sovereign territory, which had been wrested from them during the past century of foreign imperialism and precipitating civil war.
Later, a Tibetan uprising — partly nonviolent, partly violent, and largely inspired and led by the CIA, was violently squashed by the Chinese. Following these events, the Dalai Lama fled Tibet for northern India. The Dalai Lama, who has as of yet never returned to Tibet, and the Tibetan Government in Exile have been based there in Dharamsala, India for the past half-century.
The CCP created the TAR innominally establishing Tibet's regional autonomy; however, in practice Tibetans enjoy minimal or zero autonomy, as Tibet's politics, economics, and increasingly its culture are controlled by Beijing.
With this context in mind, this paper will investigate the causes of violent conflict in Tibet, and it will provide some recommended solutions that could potentially lead to a more peaceful and just arrangement in the region. This is understandable, given the prominence of ethnicity and religion in the conflict. First, while the native inhabitants of the Tibetan plateau are Tibetans, the majority ethnic group in China is Han Chinese.
The Chinese government is made up mostly of Han Chinese, and it does not have a strong record of dealing with China's ethnic minorities — like Tibetans — in a fair way. Secondly, virtually all Tibetans are Buddhists, while ethnic Han Chinese are generally not, even though the Chinese people are becoming increasingly religious — including Buddhist — now that the ideology of Communism has collapsed in China except in name only. Moreover, the Chinese government has a history of persecuting religious movements, especially those which draw large numbers of followers and which have the potential to transform into political movements that could potentially threaten the regime's hold on power.
Tibetan Buddhism has this kind of following and transformative potential. For these reasons, headlines from the Tibet conflict often paint a picture of intense religious and ethnic conflict.
While these are aspects of the conflict, they are better described as residual causes, or even consequences, of it. There is no inherent reason that ethnicity or religion must cause violent conflict — in Tibet or anywhere else. Rather, the primary sources of conflict in Tibet are history and geography; Chinese security and sovereignty concerns; and the policies of the Chinese government in Tibet.
While they bring attention to ethnic and religious differences between Tibetans and Chinese, these factors are what really drive the conflict in Tibet. History and Geography First, history and the different views on whether Tibet has historically been an independent nation represent a core cause of the conflict.
Conflict Over Tibet: Core Causes and Possible Solutions
In the Tibetan view, Tibet has been an independent nation — and at times a great empire — throughout the last several centuries. On the other hand, the Chinese believe that Tibet's historically great empire greatly declined beginning in the 9th Century and then was finally and completely brought down by the Mongols centuries ago.
These competing claims are still debated in academic and policy making circles. However, Dickinson states that "Tibetans, by virtue of their lack of participation in the larger community during the first half of the twentieth century, by their failure to participate in international organizations such as the League of Nations, and by their failure to modernize, have been unable to mount a convincing case to establish that Tibet was an independent state at the time of the Chinese occupation.
The Chinese see themselves as victims of foreign imperialism — especially during the century of humiliation, which remains fresh in their minds — and therefore feel that they must take what others see as a hard-line stance on sovereignty issues in places like Tibet. After all, if Tibet became independent, it could inspire similar succession movements in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan.
These areas not only make up significant border territories as well as buffers against foreign influence but also are central to the Chinese sense of identity — which had been devastated in the last two centuries, given the China's once proud, imperial past. Moreover, China views the Dalai Lama, perhaps unfairly, as a "splittist" that could spark "Color Revolutions" throughout China.
Bush administration's belligerent anti-China policy especially early in President Bush's tenure have reinforced China's sovereignty fears. Despite Tibet officially having a "governor", real power resides with the Communist Party Secretary, who is Han Chinese. The CCP imposes certain restriction on religious freedom, such as the number of monks allowed at a given monastery.
To help resolve violent conflict in Tibet, possible solutions — which will be discussed later — must be implemented by the following actors. The Chinese side includes ethnic Han — the majority ethnic group in China — living in Tibet and the Chinese government.
The Tibetans can be further divided into those living in the TAR as well as its neighboring provinces versus Tibetan exiles living in northern India, or elsewhere in the world. Tibetans — both inside and outside China — can be further divided into those that want to remain part of China, but with increased autonomy, and those who believe Tibet should be an independent country.
Some of those who want independence advocate nonviolent means; others promote the use of violence in the cause of Tibetan freedom from Chinese rule. No third parties have played a consistent and active role in mediating the conflict.